This Sunday, 3 August is the 105th anniversary of the birth of mystery writer, P.D. James. Her writing is known for being in the style of Golden Age mysteries, but with a darker tone, which I think is fitting to the 1960s when the early Adam Dalgliesh books were published. I love her books for exactly this reason. It’s like reading a novel from the first half of the 20th century with the gloss of nostalgia removed. So when I noticed the back cover of Scandalize My Name called the “high-quality mysteries” of Fiona Sinclair “similar in style and tone to those of P.D. James”, I was skeptical. “Fiona,” I thought, “is going to have a lot to live up to.”
Well! I cannot tell you how relieved I am to report that, in my option, Martin Edwards and British Library Publishing are spot on the money with their comparison. In defence of my skepticism, I find a lot of author comparisons on the back of books to be a bit of a disappointment. Many a time I felt that if I had not been expecting to be reading something akin to one of my favourite authors, I would have enjoyed the book more. But I digress… Let’s talk about Fiona Sinclair’s fabulous 1960 novel, Scandalize My Name.
In an almost 300-year-old house on a hill in north London, the Southey’s are holding a grand 21st birthday party for Elaine Southey. Little do the guests know that while they are enjoying the festivities, a corpse lies in the basement below. Although, the Southey’s are not close with him, their basement tenant, Ivan Sweet, has been invited to the party as well. When he fails to arrive, his brother, also in attendance at the party, goes looking for him.
Known to be a charmer, a manipulator, a blackmailer, and worse, it’s no wonder Superintendent Paul Grainger finds himself wishing he was hunting Ivan Sweet, instead of the man’s murderer.
Grainger, who has bad posture and spectacles, looks more like a don than a police officer. The 39-year-old was widowed during the Second World War not long after he was married. We get to see him in his home, at his work, and at times we are privy to his inner thoughts. When Sergeant McGregor was first paired up with Grainger, he didn’t think much of Grainger, but in their ten years working together he has come to trust that Grainger’s seeming intuitions are based on careful thought and observation. The two make an interesting pair, and like the best partners they both contrast and complement each other.
At the outset of the case, Grainger and McGregor travel to the scene of the crime, Magnolia House. Driving through London, Grainger vocalises his opinion about the start of the case being “‘the best part, just a nice clean sheet, no personalities mixed up in it yet, just an interesting puzzle that’s got to be solved’” (44). Meanwhile, McGregor is thinking about his partner.
[Sergeant McGregor] was remembering in a ruminative, amused sort of way, what a highfalutin’ fool he had considered the superior officer to whom he had been allotted ten years ago. Been up at Oxford, someone told him, taking a lot of exams in philosophy, of all unsuitable subjects for a member of the ‘Force’. He’d done his time as a ‘gentstable’ of course. McGregor suddenly smiled to himself, Sakes, but I’d like to ha’ seen him, he thought now, squinting sideways at the superintendent’s lean aristocratic figure with its scholar’s stoop and clever-looking eyes. Course he wouldna’ have had the gig-lamps then, he thought, but still! Man, though, he was a fine fellow to work for. Got right into the middle of a case while the rest were still sniffing round the edges. And methodical! Somehow he hadn't expected that; the case built up piece by piece like a jigsaw puzzle. Gave you a kick to listen to him doing it even if his lingo did take a bit of getting used to. Gave you plenty to do, too, and let you have your head. Sergeant McGregor had been won over a long time ago. (44-45)
There is a lot about the way Grainger is described, that calls to mind James’s detective Adam Dalgleish, not so much physically, but in personality. At the outset, I mentioned that James’ books harken back to Golden Age detective fiction, but are a bit darker, a bit grittier. There is no better example of this in Sinclair’s work as the scene in chapter three where an autopsy is described. Sinclair’s description is not gory, but methodical, and is unlike anything I have come across before. It comes as no surprise that Sinclair’s husband, Michael Peters, was a pathologist. I’m sure I’ve read books with autopsy’s being preformed previous to this, but the sheer matter of factness of it with specific details I have not read before made me pause to appreciate the scene. Clearly, I’m not particularly squeamish, but if you are, you may want to skip from the third paragraph on page 39 to the last paragraph on page 42. As I said, it’s not gory and Sinclair in no way glorifies what would naturally be a gruesome scene, but the writing is shocking in its plainness and may be a bit much for some.
I think it bears mentioning that quite a few characters are introduced in the first chapter. All of the party-goers do come up again in the book, so it is worth paying attention. However! I did something I almost never do, and that is to start this reading book outside in a park. If I, who has the attention span of a new puppy out on its first walk, can manage to get through that first chapter and glean enough information to carry me through the rest of the book without confusion, and without turning back to refresh my memory, I feel sure you can too. With many characters, you had better believe there are a number with secrets they would rather keep hidden. A well-stocked larder of goodies for a blackmailer to root around in, for sure. And some of those secrets are real doozies, I can tell you!
This book struck a good balance of tension and atmosphere, which Sinclair captures by showing us how the events and the setting affects the characters. Set in August, this book has all the heat and intrigue of the summer season captured amid its last gasp before the autumn. Will the end of summer be the precursor to a literal death, as well? You’ll just have to read this one to find out! Let me warn you, the conclusion is tense. I recommend reading it without distractions, if possible.
In the introduction, Martin Edwards mentions that Fiona Sinclair published five novels in total, between 1960 and 1965, Scandalize My Name being the first among these to be published. I am very much hoping that the British Library plans to bring out the remaining four, because Scandalize My Name has been added to my top five favourite British Library Crime Classics. If her other books are anything like this first one, they are much deserving of being brought back to life.
Thank you to British Library Publishing for republishing this truly wonderful title and for kindly sending me a copy of Scandalize My Name for review. As always, all opinions on the book are my own.
***If you got something out of this post, please consider subscribing to my blog. You can find the email sign up on the right hand side at the top of this page (on desktop version only), or click on the link here. You will receive a confirmation email in your inbox (or possibly your junk folder). Once you click to confirm your email address you will receive an email notification whenever a new blog post goes up. And, of course, you can unsubscribe at any time. Whether you subscribe or not, I’m thankful you are here.***
This blog post contains affiliate links for Blackwell’s. As a Blackwell’s Affiliate, I may receive a small commission, at no additional cost to you, if you decide to make a purchase through one of the links on my website. I recommend Blackwell’s because I use them myself. This helps support me in sharing—what I hope is—valuable content. Thank you for your support!
No comments:
Post a Comment